claim_rewards

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the action is idempotent, destructive, or if it affects any other state (e.g., claiming removes rewards). The phrase 'reward phase' is ambiguous and lacks clarity on process.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, front-loading the verb and resource. However, its brevity sacrifices needed context for a claim action, making it efficient but slightly under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'reward phase' refers to, what happens after claiming (e.g., tokens transferred to wallet), and any conditions (e.g., only once per phase). The current description is insufficient for complete understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides a description for the 'token' parameter ('Token address'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for 100% coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Claim accumulated rewards from reward phase' which identifies the action and resource, but among many sibling claim tools (claim_bounty, claim_faucet, etc.), it provides no distinction on what type of rewards are being claimed, leaving ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like claim_bounty or claim_vesting_tokens. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the user must have participated in a specific reward phase or have pending rewards.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.